Letters: 'Trivial' arrests, Chick-fil-A, economy blame game

Don’t dismiss arrests as ‘trivial’

Regarding “Trust Act seeks to end trivial immigrant arrests” (Aug. 3): Samuel Rodriguez’s column about the plight of Juana Reyes, an illegal alien living in the shadows for 20 years with her two American-born children, is indeed sad. Her misery is compounded by the fact that she was jailed for selling tamales without a permit and now faces the threat of deportation.

Laws are passed for one reason: They protect us! If we didn’t have laws, we would have chaos. Juana’s dilemma could easily have been prevented if she had obeyed the law. She could have immigrated legally and then obtained a permit for her business. The laws she violated are not “trivial.” She’s here illegally, and she sold food without a permit outside a Wal-Mart where food is also sold. Why is it that all of us are expected to adhere to the rules, except the Juanas? They are supposed to get a free pass to come and go as they please and never suffer the consequences of their actions.

Rather than advocating the passing of the Trust Act (Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act or AB 1081), Pastor Rodriguez’s time might be better spent helping people immigrate legally and learn the laws of the land they desire to live in. -- Marilyn Prine, San Diego

Opinions are the lifeblood of healthy public policy discussions, but blatant distortion of facts and issues undermines productive public debate. In his opinion piece, Rodriguez both distorts and misstates the facts and issues.

First he paints a picture of an innocent, hardworking woman who is unfairly arrested and then threatened with deportation because 1) she has lived in this country illegally for 20 years; 2) is not a citizen; 3) has not applied for citizenship (or intended to); and 4) did not acquire a required permit that citizens must have.

All of these items are illegal as defined by federal and state law, but never mind, says Rodriguez, because somehow having violated the law for 20 years the illegality should be ignored and this woman rewarded with all of the protections and rights of a citizen without being one.

This is bad thinking, a distortion of the facts, and suggests that “American immigrants,” as he wistfully coins a new euphemism for “illegal,” are unfairly treated and singled out for arrest and deportation for no reason. This kind of distortion only appeals to those violating the laws of the United States and those ignorant of the responsibilities of legal citizenship. -- Tom Davis, Chula Vista

Actions have consequences. Juana Reyes has brought this calamity on her family by her own deliberate actions. She has lived in “constant fear of police” for 20 years; do you think she knew she was breaking American law? The “indiscriminate rounding up” of Ms. Reyes selling food, no doubt without declaring income, actually poses a significant health risk to her customers.

What other “benefits” has she used for herself and her family while living in the shadows of American society – medical care, food stamps (SNAP), maybe even dependent-care tax credits? Now multiply her by some 20 million (likely 7 million in California alone) other illegal immigrants living here and you begin to understand the magnitude of the problem.

Juana Reyes is responsible for her dilemma, not American law. Illegal immigration is not a “trivial” problem. -- Lloyd Kitson, La Mesa

Editorial reflected ‘laughable’ ignorance

The U-T editorial board characterizes family planning health care as attacks on religious freedom (“Setback for attack on religious freedom,” Aug. 3). The religious bias and ignorance of constitutional principles would make this laughable if it were it not so serious and widespread.

To paraphrase (and correct) the statement made in the U-T piece: “This country was founded as a haven for individuals who wanted to live their lives in ways that cohered with their religious beliefs and are free from the religious beliefs of others and from government coercion.”

You can look it up. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment also means we are free not to practice religion.

The compelling interests of society are subject to debate. Does the benefit of providing family planning services to those who choose it for whatever reason outweigh the personal views of a private company operating in this society? I say yes. -- Rick Stravinsky, San Diego

Bible says so? Prove it

In response to Laurel Moorhead’s letter (Aug. 3) that says, “There are citations in the Bible that indicate an acceptance of same-sex relationships”: Please give the book and passage number to prove it. No one ever does. They just assume we know the Bible inside-out. -- Karla M. Green, El Cajon

Weighty cartoon

Steve Breen’s Aug. 3 cartoon showing President Obama trying to swim with the economy holding him back forgot to show George W. Bush placing the economic ball and chain on Obama’s ankle. -- Leon Bloom, San Diego

Instead of showing a struggling Obama weighed down by the economy, Steve Breen’s cartoon should have depicted a struggling economy weighed down by Obama. -- David Drews, Rancho Peñasquitos